participating in the auction but it allows rules of general applicability for spectrum aggregation to guard against undue spectrum concentration in any market. .. any bidder that is a nationwide service provider and has 45 mega hurst or more of spectrum below

1 giga hertz will not be -- the nonrestricted bidders are free to bid on all available spectrum, reserved and nonreserve, regardless of their total spectrum holdings. but what some call correcting a historical accident i call corporate welfare for certain mule tie national companies with large math capitalization and access to global capital markets. the companies also have strong backing by foreign governments. why? with so much riding on the success of this auction would the commission add to the complexity and risk lowering auction revenues in order to allow a favored few to buy the spectrum at below market rates. if this set aside is so critical to wireless competition why may it only be triggered if the commission hits a certain revenue target. wireless providers have many strategious decisions win or

when not participate in auction, including low-band auction, when and where to invest and build, whether to focus on urban or rural markets and what mergers to enter into. where the companies are today as a direct result of such decisions, not by accident. some companies want a spectrum subsidy to acquire the same type of low-band spectrum they passed on previously. free market spectrum auctions award lions to those who value the spectrum the most and will put it to its greatest use. unintend consequences may result and consumers may not receive the benefits of the best the marketplace has to offer. even if the set-asides do not tank the incentive auction we'll never know the full opportunity costs of these decisions, i.e. the counterfactual. how much money could the auction

have raced without intervention. would nonfavorred companies have been able to win and provide consumers with superior products or services? we'll not know the extent but losses are for real. american consumers subscribe to the provider confined to speck truck. why should they endure slower network speak due to internet congestion. there can be no justification for going down the path of picking winners and losers in the auction process. if the concern is spectrum concentration in the mark, the spectrum screen addresses that issue. if rural markets are the top concern as some have claimed, why distort the highly competitive urban market. if the concern is warehousing that can be addressed through our buildout rules that require licensees to invest in a network and service customers by a set

date. show me the evidence, not abstract theoretical possible. i hope we will reverse course and hold a free and open auction which all parties can compete for speck truck licenses equal -- spectrum answers -- equally but should not look to me for any type of special relief, including extension of built you had deadlines or signoff when the seek permission to flip their licenses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you to all the commissioners. i again have a formal statement for the record. let me just summarize. this agency has two statutory mandates at play in the 600 megahertz option. the first you heard a lot about today and that is that every party has a right to bid and should be able to bid in every

market. and that is what this rule accomplishes. the second statutory mandate that we have is to promote competition and public safety. as you have heard discussed-the characteristics of 600 megahertz are different from higher band spectrum. and that means that the signal travels farther and penetrates buildings through their walls better. thus if there's to be effective competition in rural america, then wireless carriers must have access to 600 megahertz. the alternative is to have to spend sometimes up to four times as much as otherwise would be necessary to build out highband,

and that explains why, when you look at coverage maps, there are so many white spaces for those people in rural areas, for those people who don't have low-band spectrum. so i want to make sure there is competition. we fulfill the mandate of congress, there's competition in rural areas. likewise, public safety in urban areas demands that you be able to make a 9-1-1 call from inside a building. you don't want to be the person who is stuck with or who unbeknownst to them has a subscription with a firm that doesn't have spectrum that will penetrate those walls as well. thus, what this rule does is to

prevent those with current low-band spectrum from monopolizing the market by assuring some spectrum will be available for those within sufficient amounts spectrum to serve rural areas and penetrate buildings. it has been a very complex issue. i want to thank my colleagues for their efforts in this regard and coming to a resolution on that, and particularly want to thank the terrific team of wireless bureau that has brought us to this point and labored so hard on this difficult and contentious issue. some i will call for the vote. all those in favor, sayeye aye.

>> opposed. >> no. >> the ayes have it. would any of my colleagues like to make any announcements at this point in time? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is not a prepare but i did not want to let this opportunity pass, and you might be in a position to say something about this -- after about 39 years according to all of the posters that i've seen throughout the building, our very own bob says for the fifth time that he is going to retire, but just in case he is serious, i want to let him know how appreciative i am of him for being an adviser to me for saying yes to me right -- i think it was the fourth time he said he was going to retire, i begged -- he didn't let me beg long but he was my acting chief of the enforcement bureau during the transition, did a phenomenal job, has always

been this incredible resource of historical data. i don't know what we will do without you, but if indeed you're serious this time, you deserved it. you deserve it. we will miss you. and i for one thank you. >> hear hear. >> jessica? >> i want to take a minute to introduce our new law clerk, danielle joined our office this past monday and his first assignment dealt with oet69. i'm pleasantly surprised he decided to stick it out for the rest of the summer. daniel is entering his second year of law school at the university of virginia, and he is pursuing a joint degree in law and public policy, and he earn his bachelors degree in economics and business from bran dies -- brandeis. he is a new york yankees fan,

and i'm still convinced george brett was robbed. daniel is getting married next month and we're drilled for him. we're debating whether to give hem the day off. that will depend on his job performance. awe joking aside we're lucky to have daniel part of the team and we welcome him here to the commission. >> welcome, daniel. michael? >> i want associate myself with the comments of the gentle lady about bob radcliffe and the terrific contribution that he has made, and i also want to thank paul waters. are you over? paul waters. today -- paul was my first intern in the chairman's office, and today is his last day. i don't know why he wanted to stick around for today, but today is his last day, and it

will be our significant loss. paul is about to graduate from george washington law school. he is going to retreat to pennsylvania and take the bar, but we hope that it's not a long retreat and we might see him again. so, paul, thank you for everything. [applause] >> if there's nothing else, we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> the chair of the fcc, tom wheeler, testifies before a house energy and commerce subcommittee tomorrow morning. he is expected to talk about the

spectrum auction, media ownership and net neutrality. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 at 10:30 eastern. >> in few moments, jill abrahamson, the former executive editor of "the new york times," gives the commencement speech at wake forest university. in about 20 minutes, a preview of the upcoming week on capitol hill and the white house. and then indiana governor mike pence's plans to use funds to help his state's low-income residents. on the next "wall street journal" we'll get an update on the announcement five chinese officers were being charged with computer hacking. we'll talk to ben fitzgerald, and then talk about the potential threat over the mers virus and take your phone calls

on the primary races, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "wall street journal," --" "washington journal." >> coolidge was a conservative hero and his tax rate was a gold standard tax rate we saw, 25% was what he got, the top rate down to, and he fought like crazy. started with wilson in the '70s, so that was an epic battle. andown look at what the socialites said about coolidge in washington, wouldn't meet with them -- they were probably all from families that endorsed different policies, especially alice longsworth. it was a let get 'em, and coolidge was prissy and cold and not giving out favors. she said he looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle.

his silence was cultural. he was from new england. farmers don't talk a lot or wave their arms about because a cow might kick them. you know if you lived there. and it was tempermental. a shy person, but also had a political purpose. he knew that if he didn't talk a lot, people would stop talking and of course a president or political leader is constantly bombarded with requests and his silence was his way of not giving in to special interests and articulated that. jill abrahamson the first woman executive editor of the "new york times." fired last week with conflicting

reports for the reason. she gave the commencement address today at wake forest university in winston-salem, north carolina. the address was a little less than 20 minutes. [applause] >> you brought a lot of friends with you. there are few jobs more daunting thanked didding a newspaper. editing a newspaper, but the very viability of newspapers at stake, these days call for unare unusual energy, innovation, courage, and judgment. meeting that challenge is the gold standard of american journalism, "the new york times." she shines brighter than ever. that is in large part due to jill abrahamson.

as we crack more of the glass ceiling of gender discrimination, the speaker of the house, corporate crowes, television anchors, chair of the first reserve board -- a seminole step was taken three years ago when "the new york times" named its first woman executive editor. she took over a great institution and leaves it this past week better, stronger, more vibrant than ever. it is said she can be a tough, no-nonsense, even pushy, in her passionate commitment to truth and accountable, no matter rank or party. that is what makes a greeted did for. it is said she has a keen eye and a range of knowledge so broad it is humbling. that is what makes a greeted did -- a greateditor.

whether cover wars, the corrupting influence of special interests or the abuse of governmental powers, jill always demands ex- -- excellence, the best, that's why she is such a great editor. let me share an anecdote. jill and jane mayer wrote a book about the clarence thomas controversy. "60 minutes" scheduled an interview with them. only when cbs showed up did the authors realize it was to be a piece critical of the book. this sends shivers down the spines of mere mortals. a "60 minutes" inquestion -- inquisition. just acknowledge. not jill abrahamson, the iron lady.

she got her notebook, pulled out the facts, rebutted every charge and killed the theme. she went eye-to-eye with "60 minutes." they blanked. it was on this campus, a half century ago, i decided to become a journalist, ons blind by spending several days with a visiting "new york times" legend, scotty ruston. little did i realize that decades later i would be close friends with another "new york times" legend. she isn't a pipe-smoking contemplative columnist. she is a thoughtful, courageous editor, with a new york accent so thick we may need a translator this morning. she is one of the most powerful women in the world who always has time for her many friends. it's one of the pleasures of my life to be her colleague. and today, it is with such pride

that i present your commencement speaker, my dear friend, jill abram son. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i think the only real news here today is your graduation from this great university. first of all, congratulations.

[applause] >> i'm impressed that your achievements have attracted so much media attention. as well they should. i'm so happy to be here to share this important day. my own college graduation is still a thrilling memory. in fact i actually had breakfast this morning with one of my college classmates, barkley reeves, a proud parent of a graduate out here today and one already my fav lit family photos is my busting with pride father hat harvard, come dropout, never got to wear his own cap and gown so he crammed his 6'0" self into mine, he looked silly but

raident. i hope all of you in the class of 2014 are lucky enough to have at least one parent or someone who helped raise you here today, a shoutout to all the parents, grandparents, and others in the audience. my own children are recent college grads, so i know how full your hearts are today because your kids have worked so hard and achieved so much. president taft suggested i speak to you today about resilience, and i'm going to take his wise counsel, but i'm not quite finished with the parents part. very early last thursday, my sister called me. she said, i know dad would be as proud of you today as the day you became executive editor of "the new york times." i've -- i'd been fired the

previous day, so i knew what she was trying to say. it meant more to our father to see us deal with the setbacks and try to bounce back, than to watch how we handled our successes. show what you are made of, he would say. graduating from wake forest means all of you have experienced success already, and some of you, and now i'm talking to anyone who has been dumped -- you bet. not gotten the job you really wanted. or received those horrible rejection letters from grad school. you know the thing of losing or not getting something you badly want. when that happens, show what you are made of. i was in china recently, and as some of you know "the new york

times" web site has been blocked by censors there for more than a year. that means in china, citizens cannot read the most authoritative coverage of their country, and every time i reflectively tried to open the "times" web site i got the message, safari cannot open the page, which made me become more and more furious. while i was in beijing, one of our chinese journalists, patrick zuo, was detained by authorities for hours. the government meant to scare and intimidate him. why was he detained? simply because he worked as a truthful journalist. so what did he do? he came right back to work and quietly got on with things. i did what i believe and that makes me fearless, patrick told

me after his ordeal. you know, "new york times" journalists risk their lives frequently to bring you the best news report in the world. that's why it's such an important and irreplaceable institution, and it was the honor of my life to lead the newsroom. a couple of students who i was talking to last night, after arrived, they know i have some tattoos. and one of them asked me, are you going to get that "times" t you have tattooed on your back removed? not a chance. [applause] i think the little challenge of my own not long ago. i got run over and almost killed by a truck in times square. you may begin to call me

calamity jill. but stay with me here. and when this seventh anniversary of that accident approaching i wrote an article about the risks of pedestrians with three colleagues who had also been struck and hurt. we mentioned a nine-year-old boy in the top of our story who had been hit and killed by a cab early in the year. a few days after the story was published, i got an e-mail from dana lerner. it began: thank you for the article you wrote in last sunday's "times." the boy you mentioned is my son, cooper stock. i met with dana last thursday, and cooper was just killed in january. but dana, her husband and others are already working on a new law to make the streets safer. she is taking an unimaginable loss and already trying to do

something constructive. we human beings are a lot more resilient than we often realize. resilient and persevering. and there are so many examples of this. for me professionally, three heroes are nan-son, a groundbreakening reporter, and cath ran graham, the publisher of the "washington post," which broke the watergate story. they both faced discrimination in a much tougher, more male-dominated newspaper industry, and they went on to win pulitzer prizes. my colleague, jim rosen, who is standing up against an unfair washington leak investigation, is another hero. i co-authored a book bat anita hill, who testified about sexual harassment before an all-white, all-male senate judiciary

committee in the 1990s. the senators portrayed her as being one of their detractors so delicately put it, a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty. she turned that potential humiliation into a great career, teaching at brandeis university, and writing books that tell truth to power. anita was one of the many people who wrote me last week to say they're proud of me. those messages are so appreciated. some of you have faced danger or even a sole-scorching loss, but most of you haven't, and leaving the protective cocoon of school for the working world must seem scary. you'll probably have a dozen different jobs, try all different thing.

sure, losing a job you love hurts, but the work i revered, journalism that holds powerful institutions and people accountable, is what makes our democracy so resilient. this is the work i will remain very much a part of. my only reluctance in showing up today was that the small media circus following me would deattract -- detract tapings away from you, the fabulous class of 2014. what total knockouts you are. [applause] [applause] >> what is next for me? i don't know. so i'm in exactly the same boat as many of you.

and like you, i'm a little scared but also excited. i don't really think coach manning could find much use for me. but right after this speech, i've booked a private session with andy chan. [laughter] [applause] whose career counseling operation is a model for universities around the world. when i was leaving my office for the last time, i grabbed a book off my shelf. robert frost. speaking on campus. and in closing i'm going to leave you with some wisdom from the colby college commencement speech the great poet gave in

1956. he described life after graduating as pieces of knitting to gone with. what he meant was that life is always unfinished business, like the bits of knitting women used to carry around with them to be picked up at different intervals, and for those of you who have never knit, think of it as akin to your tumblr. something you can pick up from time to time and change. my mother was a great knitter and she made some really magnificent things, but she also made a few itchy, frankly hideous, sweaters for me. she left some things unfinished. so today, you gorgeous, brilliant people, get on with your knitting. [applause]able

at your favorite bookseller. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with two

veteran reporters in washington. bob cusack, managing editor of "the hill." white househenn, reporter with the associated press. the week ahead in washington. what is on the president's agenda? guest: he has been doing these somatic weeks. -- these thematic the this week the president is -- i guess if there's a theme, it's foreign investments in the u.s. so he is bringing some business leaders to the white house on tuesday, and then later in the week he is going to cooperstown to the baseball hall of fame to excuse tourism. so that seems to be the theme of the week this week. it's his kind of -- at the white house they call it his pen and phone thing, where he tries to do things on his own when congress isn't with him. >> is this an interaction with congress? what's on his agenda this week doesn't sound like something he

is asking congress to do. >> no. this is basically highlighting things that he thinks -- he can do or has been able to do. he has this program called, select u.s.a., which is a way that he has coordinated a lot of federal agencies to help cities and states attract businesses to the u.s., and and hey as couple of examples. louvre lufthansa set up a big plant in puerto rico. cut a deal with a belgian company for oklahoma. at the same time kind of underscores hour limited his power and ability is to deal with the economy without congress. >> bob accuse sack, lawmakers back this week. the senate was in last week. what is on the agenda at the house? >> defense. the defense authorization bill is coming to the house floor. hundreds of amendments have been filed. house rules committee will

decide on voting some of them. with the defense bill you have nasa issues, military, sexual assault. there could be immigration. there's been talk of giving people who have served in the military green cards, and this is something that is very controversial. kind of basically half of what the dream act is, and some democrats, and republicans, want this attached to defense bill. so that's something to watch in house and senate. on the senate side, the tax extender bills. that got bogged down in dispute over amendments. they couldn't come to an agreement. finance committee leaders are trying to get some type of agreement. this kind of bill is similar to the medicare physician payment formula where they can't get a big tax reform bill through congress, so these tax breaks that are popular, in both parties, every year, they're extended, and senator widen, who is the new chairman of the finance committee, said this is

it. we'll do it one more time and then we'll attack the tax code. one other thing that could come up in the senate is sylvia burwell, kathleen sebelius' replacement at hhs. her confirmation process has gone as smoothly as it can go and she will probably get a big partisan vote. probably not unanimous because it's such a contentious department. and the other big thing to watch tomorrow. tea party tests, cop tests in kentucky can, georgia, idaho, and oregon, and incumbent run rums been challenged from to the right, including senator mitch mcconnell, and mike simpson, an ally of speaker boehner being challenged. the club for growing has supported the challenger to simpson. so we have some legislation moving, not huge pieces of bills but the election season is up and running. >> so, beyond what is going to be talk about on the floor, there are debates about what

happened on the floor, and one of them is immigration. the lead story for the hill, boehner's big reform decision. what's he going to do on immigration? >> that's a great question. it's a really good story by russell -- all eyes are on boehner. there was controversy last week where white house senior adviser, valerie jarrett, said that she had a commitment -- the white house got a commitment from boehner to move immigration this year. boehner has mocked his republican colleagues back home a week or so ago. he had to walk those back when he got back to washington. so, the question is, what is boehner going to do and is he going to be the speaker next year? is this a legacy? because boehner through his career has been a dealmaker. he wants to move immigration reform but it's so hard to move the house republican conference, partly bus a lot of republicans say why are we doing this? we're look agent pretty good election season. we may win the senate.

why bring up something that divides us? but boehner does feel when the senate moves on something and it sits in the house he feels like it's -- the ball is in his court. so there's been a lot of talk on conservative radio, very concerned what boehner could do and what would eric cantor do, the possible successor to boehner. cantor indicated he notice ready november on anything unless it has the support of the house republican conference, and boehner said he tied himself in knots and said we're not going to conference with the senate bill. we're not going to move any bill unless i has the majority of the emergencyity. anything on immigration is not close to having the majority of the majority. so it's very intriguing and the deadline, people say, is the august recess. so doesn't happen by then, watch democrats on capital hill and the white house sharply criticize republicans. they've held off until i think august. >> i think the white house has

been in fact one of the comments that valerie jarrett said, we have until august to make a determination here as to whether the house is going to move, and there have been back channel discussions between the speaker's office and the white house, and i think they believe that the speaker wants to go, but they understand what his political limitations are. in the meantime, there's this kind of parallel track going on with department of homeland security, where jay johnson, the secretary's looking at how he can soften the divide on deportation. the president has got an lot of criticism from the immigrant advocacy associations over the number of we do port additions. so -- deportations. so they're trying to decide whether to make this a wholesale executive action that limits the number of deportations. it's not where they want to go because that would destroy any deal they could get with

republicans. so, the fixes might be more on the margins. even if congress doesn't act, even if boehner doesn't act by august, think what you'll see from the administration will be some tweaks but nothing that is a wholesale change in immigration. >> show our viewers what the president had to say about this recently. he was at a law enforcement briefing on immigration and here's what he said about the issue right now and the prospects of it moving in congress. >> public opinion is on our side on this. unfortunately, we have a handful of house republicans ruth now who are blocking -- right now who are blocking letting legislation get to the floor. to their credit, i think speaker boehner and some of the other leaders there do believe that immigration reform is the right thing but they have to have a political space that allows them to get it house the caucus and

get it done. i've said to them if they have ideas, i'm happy to talk to them. we're not hell bent on making sure that every letter of what is in the senate bill is exactly what ultimately lands on my desk for signature. but there's some core principles we have to get done. we have to have stronger border security. have to make sure that we are dealing with companies that are not doing the right thing by workers. we have to make sure that we got an improved legal immigration system, because a lot of folks are getting push into the illegal system because the waits are so long through the legal process. and we have to make sure that there's a way for people to earn some pathway to citizenship. >> can the president last tuesday -- was that a nudge? >> i think so. some interesting clues that the president said of where he wiggle room exists. the senate bill right now has a

path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants here illegally. there is some interest in the house and certainly some of the republican proponents of immigration reform have talk about a legal status for immigrants who are here illegally but not necessarily a path to citizenship, something that puts him ahead of others who have been waiting in line to gain citizenship. when the president says he is not hell bent on getting everything in the senate bill, i think that's an important point. he didn't mention pga to citizenship in those remarks, so i think that leaves an opening and an area where -- that could allow the house to come up with a compromise. >> bob can kusac do those commes help or hurt? >> when the president was praising speaker boehner. boehner privately told democrats no tot publicly praise him, especially on immigration,

because this is such a tough task for speaker boehner, and the interesting thing is that earlier this year, boehner put out some principles that the house republican conference, and it looked like all signals were go, and then the house republicans had a meeting and they said, they didn't -- not so much not like the principles but they're not ready to move on this. so it's a real tough spot for boehner, and the president and boehner really -- they don't have the best relationship. the debt ceiling fight of 2011, there are still scars from. that. and so many fiscal battles, and boehner says the president needs to step up and have house runs build trust. how does he do that? could he give a speech where he said he was going to follow the law? i don't know if it's enough. one interesting proposal that senator schumer said, if you don't trust this president, let's pass the bill now and it will be effective for the next

president. so if there is a deal -- and i'm doubtful but if there is a deal that could be some type of compromise. >> let's talk about a new story that dominated last week ask that's what is going on at the veterans affairs healthcare facilities. the story continued through the weekend. what do you think is going to happen at the white house this week with the pressure building for general centerline second can i to go? -- general shinseki to go. >> with this administration and with previous issues like this, that have flared and created serious problems for the white house, they don't chop the heads off of people in positions of authority until much later in the process. so you saw the white house during the healthcare.gov debacle send in jeff sipes, one off his trusted fixers to go into hhs and essentially bail

kathleen sebelius out of the problem. in this case he sent rob neighbors-his deputy chief of staff and has long ties with the hill because he used to be the legislative director for the white house, they've sent him to va to help shinseki with this review of the problems. the bit of a difference between the healthcare.gov problem was that was centralized and it was in one place. the va and its va hospitals are diffuse. these are mine -- minibureaucracies scattered across the country. any one of them can be a problem, and once you start seeing two or three or four, starts looking systemic, expect that's problem the white house knees to get ahold of. >> in the "washington times" the front page story was is that the administration was warned in 2008 during their transition there were problems with the va

system. there were waiting types and scheduling failures and threatening to deny veterans timely health care. what do you make of the story and the impact on the administration? >> the white house likes to say i think it was bob gates, former secretary of defense, who warned the president at the very beginning that he should realize that every day someplace, someone in the federal government is screwing up, and that eventually some those of end up on his desk. and i think, yes, you might have warnings. the white house would tell you that they have tried to tackle one of the persistent problems which is these long lists of disable claims, and incredible backlog there. they say they've been able to shorten that. that assertion is perhaps -- comes into question once you start seeing that at the very hospitals they were gaming the system and gaming the numbers on

other types of treatment. but the white house says, we tried to deal with some of these problems we were presented with but here's one where you actually had 40 people die while waiting for treatment in arizona. so, it's a big problem for the white house. it probably right now is overshadowing benghazi as an issue, and yesterday, the chief of staff, dennis mcdonough, had to good on tv and say the president is mad as hell, and we haven't seen the president mad as hell yet. he hasn't said anything. but certainly at least his chief of staff is saying that they're taking it seriously. on the hill, their efforts legislative efforts, i believe, to give shinseki more authority to fire people. so that's a way. to give shinseki authority.

>> is that how senate democrats are responding. >> the house considers that bill that would give shinseki that much more power. in his testimony last week, shinseki did fairly well. he said he was mad as hell. took a lot of the blame. a trio of republican senators called on him to step aside. we still don't know the extent of everything here, ongoing investigations are, lawsuits on this, but he has been able to keep his job and said he serves at the pleasure of the president. jim was mentioning the president -- his first impulse is not to fire people so he has not call for his resignation, but this is going to go on for while and the investigations could can yield other things because one of the most damning things, not only do you have these cook can the books but the could haveup, and that seemed to be the case in arizona. >> on the hill.com you have that the former senator bob

kerry, democrat of nebraska, call on shinseki to go. why does it matter? in these teen of -- type of scandals if you're in trouble, whether you're a republican or democrat, if the other partyes calling for you to ten aside, it's common place. if members of your own team -- we have seen that over the years where different politicians have gotten into trouble but when your own team turns on you, that's when you're in trouble, and maybe this could be the beginning. and we're in an election season. so certainly democrats don't want to be defending shinseki when he is in the moment of fire. so maybe this could blow the first of several democrats. >> bob kerry is a veteran, navy seal, lost his leg in action, so he brings a bit more weigh to the argument. >> right, as he hill notes, served in the vietnam war as u.s.a. navy seal, was awarded

the medal or honor for his heroism in combat. after service he was a patient of the va for eight or nine years, he said. let go to first phone call, bob, democratic caller. you're on the air. go ahead. >> caller: hello, greta. thank you for taking my call. what really bothers me is how they're saying that hillary has brain damage, and i'd like to know what bob thinks about that. she is a terrible secretary of state, she is responsible for benghazi, boko haram, everything. it is just horrible what they're doing to hillary. and it's outrageous, and it's karl rove and the republicans. please respond to that. >> your your thing toes. >> a big controversy last week and it's going to go on for a

while because in all likelihood hillary clinton will be running for president. the health issue, i believe she would be 69 if she were elected, which would be roughly the age that john mccain would have been but younger than rig -- ronald reagan. so republicans didn't like the way rove did and it how he did it, and clear live it's -- when you run for president there's so much pressure for yoko toe release your halve records and she has had health issues before. bill clinton attacking karl rove's attack on his wife. so, this is certainly whether it's health or her reign at the state department, she said that was her biggest regret, benghazi. and as far as her record at the state department she has to make a compelling case, this is what i did, number one, number two number three, and benghazi maybe could have been handle he would differently. >> the select committee created in the house to investigate what

happened on september 11, 2012. do they call the former secretary of state before them? >> that's a big question, and it would be huge risk but also a lot of republicans feel like they have to call her. she obviously testified before congress, and the senate, and i think they probably will. it's going to be quite a theater if they call on her to testify, but that's what republicans said. the initial investigation that she was not questioned on it. so, now, i think republicans are going to need to say, these are the three questions that we don't know about benghazi and they started to come up with their message on that. big question, of course, whether democrats are going to participate in this special committee. they have not made the decision. they're a bit divide on it. and there's been talk of boycotting it completely. they want equal representation.

there's seven runs on it. they want seven democrats. boehner says you're going to get five. we're the majority. so, what will house democrat does? it's up to nancy pelosi. will she appoint one member in that's an idea that was floated by the democrat for connecticut. i think when push comes to shove ex-think they're going to get -- going to put in five democrats, as many as they can get, on the commitee, because when hillary clinton is in the room, democrats are going to want to defend her if they do ask -- either subpoena or ask her to testify. >> i think the initially this idea that they could delegitimize the commitee by not appointing members has probably lost some power. now the white house did talk about this idea of naming one. they were ceding that decision to pelosi, noting she had this

political problem with her members, but this idea of naming one just so they could keep track of what was going on in commitee so that they would have staff at that at depositions thk took was something that had caught some attention at the white house. ultimately, if they realized that delegitimate amazing is not the path to take they might as well appoint five to it. >> yet, at the same time this select committee is about to get underway this week, you have the house oversight and government reform committee continuing on with this investigation, work whatever it department to try to get secretary of state john kerry there before them. he has had some traveling conflicts. what's going on between the leadership there and who is really doing this investigation? >> well, boehner didn't want to have the special committee. it was resolution by congressman frank wolf, and he got a lot of

support, a lot of cosponsors, no democratic cosponsors, and boehner resisted because he said we want to go through regular order and can defer to our committee chairman, most notely darryl issa. but then the pressure and -- there was an e-mail from a white house adviser of ben rhodes that couple out, not because of any investigation but because of a lawsuit brought by judicial watch, consecutive group, through the freedom of information act and that is when boehner said, okay, we need more power. we have to step it up. and the committee chairman were not crazy about this idea but he is saying they can continue doing their investigation. he -- interestingly he tide not put any of the committee chairman who have investigated benghazi, can arm odd services oversight, on this special committee. so john kerry will testify. just a matter of when, and john kerry was not there when benghazi happened but as far as the documents, republicans claim

the state depth has not been as forthcoming as they should be. >> and as bob was saying, this is a headline from fox news' web site that republicans want new clinton testimony on benghazi. we're talking with bob cusack and jim kuhnhenn. going to richard in kady texas, a republican caller. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask the panel their assessment on the up prime minister extension -- unemployment extension. is this issue finally dead or still have life? >> jim? >> well, the white house is still pushing for it, but congress just hasn't acted. they haven't had the numbers aren't there bob might have a better insight into what the politics are, but this just hasn't moved, i think partly

some of the steam gets -- goes away from this issue as some of the unemployment numbers have come down, and as you have seen, hiring increased, but that's a fluctuating number, and you go month to month and then sit suddenly you're back to a low hiring by the private sector. so, i don't know what -- >> i agree. the momentum for this bill -- earlier this year looked like it was going to happen. it stalled in the senate, and then through a lot of negotiation, they got through the senate so this is another bill that a lot of bills that the house passed are sitting in the senate. this is a bill, like immigration, that is stuck in the republican led house. conservatives don't feel the pressure to ac on this, and as you mention, jim, the dropping unemployment rate, hurts the effort to move this bill and really we haven't seen the push

from the white house has been intense at times but it's fadessed. and i think the chances of this bill are very slim. >> steve, next in westport point, massachusetts, independent caller. >> caller: hi. i'd like to make just a couple observations. one of the guests mentioned that john boehner in the president don't have such a great relationship, and they probably don't but more of the fact that john boehner would like to have a good relationship. your guest mentioned that the great debt crisis where they could have had a grand bargain, were only a handshake away. the president did everything he could. the tea party kept raising raise bar first a dollar and a half of cut for every dollar of revenue, and two and a half dollars and the president trumped him and went to three dollars. boehner says you got everything you want.

tea party said you shake his hand and that will be your end. so, i think the problem isn't so much the relationship. i think it's -- it's not even the policies. no matter what the president seems to want to do, there's going to be that tea party faction that just says, we're against it. >> bob? >> there's no doubt that john boehner has to watch the tea party guys in his conference and as the caller mentioned they were very close to a grand bargain, extremely close, which would have been a very controversial, tough to move certainly through the house, but it raises the issue, what is john boehner's legacy as speaker? and that could have been one. the grand bargain-but didn't happen and could it be systems could can be. but other than that, maybe curbing spending here or there, but i'm sure that he wouldn't say it publicly but that cross

his mind. ... tomorrow is primary day in several states and this is a test for tea party candidates. mean if tomorrow comes and some tea party candidates have one and some of lost? >> so far, we have a fight on the right. there is a fight on the left as well. hillary clinton, some people want to have a primary with her. there is some concern with her on the left. the biggest party is on the right. establishment versus tea party. we saw this play out in different primaries over the last couple of elections. elected oneel they electable people. they won the primary and lost in the general election, including the challenger to harry reid they won the primary and lost in the general election including the challenger to harry reid a few years ago so this is another test. it's a tea party challenge to mitch mcconnell.

it looks like mcconnell is going to win and could win big. if he wins big that's a big deal. there are contested primaries in georgia where there are some republicans don't want congressman paul brown to win. they think he could struggle in the general so we have this fight and right now the establishment is kind of fighting back and winning. we shall see if mike simpson loses congressman mike simpson loses his seat because of a tea party challenge atsa went for the tea party. >> host: is the white house watching this and did they change their strategy for the rest of the year depending on what happens in these primaries? >> guest: i think what the white house sees here is whether the tea party is weakened by this or not. they still see the republican party as a whole having moved to a more conservative stance. i think that affects how they view and create their strategy

for winning in congress. there's really a possibility that's out there for these two sides to negotiate over. so but i think my colleague chuck babington wrote this over the weekend this idea that even asked -- even if the tea party suffers these losses you have seen the party in general move to the right. at the same time you have seen the chamber of commerce come in as kind of a representative of the establishment of the republican party way in and the georgia race. i think they put money for jack kingston in that race. so they are trying to affect these races as well. but again i think fundamentally there has been -- that the needle has moved a little bit to the right because of the tea party whether they win these races are not. husk of a couple of viewers

writing in on twitter. it's clear of the majority of u.s. citizens are against amnesty. the presence release of over 36,000 illegal alien criminals is unconscionable and bill king says why is now moving on immigration minimum wage on employment in states not accepting expanding medicare not hurting the republicans? is it not hurting the republicans? >> guest: it's not. if you look at the election democrats have to defend far more seats than the republicans so history also shows that in the six or seven-year itch when you have the president's party second term midterm not a good situation. overall this has been frustrating to congressional democrats because on these individual polling issues they do pretty well. immigration is one that is not a top issue as far as one or two jobs in the economy so the white house democrats have made the argument it would help. husk and let me stop you because even with the hispanic polls

were low on jobs and the economy. >> guest: we were looking at congressional web sites and challengers. two things we look at. one how do they deal with the a fort for care act and did they mention obama cannot also immigration. a lot of democrats were not talking about obamacare and maybe health care in general but not the law which is not very popular. on immigration surprisingly not a people were mentioning it unless it's in certain districts >> host: california a republican caller. go ahead. >> caller: hi. good morning. i have a couple of comments. i'm a republican and i feel very discouraged about the two representatives there representing the media. i watch c-span very thoroughly and across-the-board other media outlets and i watch the hearings in congress and on the floor

when the ills. i do my research and to see these two representatives continuously misinformed the public. >> host: where did you hear that? >> guest: they just misrepresent the information that is out there. >> host: give me an example. >> guest: one example is the fact that it's morning when reince priebus was on talking about hillary clinton about her health records and her age and so forth age doesn't have too much if anything to do with anything about her medical records. one of the republicans on the republican side of any person that is running whether it be rand paul because look at his record and his history of what he has done as a politician.

and his mentality. he has not given any information to the public on chris christie. >> host: i'm going to move on. we will go to steve in pennsylvania. republican caller. hi steve. >> caller: boy there's a lot of good topics here. immigration and all the scandal. i am a vet and i'm tea party. the first thing about hillary clinton and the bushes why is everything focused on the two back and say the country? benghazi is a big thing with her and her accomplishments, i don't

see any. >> host: let me ask you this. is the remaining months here of this legislative session is it about 2014 or is it about 2016? bob cusack. >> guest: i think it's both. democrats are saying the investigation about benghazi is on 2016 and weakening clinton. republicans are hungry to back the white house and i think the other democratic challengers besides clinton there will be a few. will there be any substantial challenge to her? i don't think so. a lot of people are some people think elizabeth warren is going to run. she said she's not going to run and on the republican side there'll be a lot of people running running so the legislative agenda certainly 2014 the big question is can republicans win back the senate? we have seen some popular bills like the jobless benefits bills. there are enough republicans

where it moved through the senate the camp waves -- blames senate republicans. when the house and republicans are in a position where they expect to pick up some seats. democrats think they will pick up seats but the chances of democrats winning back the house unless something dramatic happens that's just not going to happen. >> host: for the white house is it about 2014 or 2016? >> guest: they don't have that much interest. he doesn't have a dog in the 2165 and he has been very careful not to give a nod to either hillary clinton or joe biden. when it comes to 2014 the one thing that they are relying on the president to do is raise money. a lot of candidates really don't want him campaigning with them. they certainly like the way that he makes a pitch for donors. he still very effective at doing that and in fact every week has been sprinkled with fund-raising events in this wiki is doing one here and another one in chicago.

the one example that doesn't prove my point is last week i guess when he went to little rock. senator pryor invited him to come. senator pryor has been trying to distance himself from obama policies but when you have a disaster like with the tornado in the state if arkansas having a president there are is more a symbol of you have the clout to bring the most powerful person in the country to your state and that was an effective way for pryor to use a president without having to embrace his policies. >> host: bobby said at the top in the senate you could see a vote this week on burwell to take over for kathleen sebelius. there's a shakeup at the white house. jim kuhnhenn the san antonio mayor. >> guest: julianne castro.

>> host: what is the president doing here? >> guest: he's bringing in shaun donovan who is the current secretary of housing into the white house to be the budget director. that's what he wants. and moving julianne castro who is of well-liked at the white house. he is one of two brothers that of maynard name for themselves and his brother joaquin is a member of congress. so if donovan goes to the budget office at omb he will be replacing sylvia burwell who won't have a vote this week on being secretary of health and human services and castro would come in as secretary of housing if he is confirmed by the senate. it's an interesting move because castro really is kind of a known figure and a rising star within the democratic party but his

base is in san antonio and perhaps within the hispanic community. this is an attempt perhaps to raise his visibility and four the hispanic prominence. certainly the white house has come under some criticism for not having more hispanics in positions of authority within the cabinet. tom perez is the one that stands out. >> host: we will go to jesse and michigan democratic caller. hi jesse. >> caller: hi. i have two comments i want to make. can you hear me? >> host: we can hear you jesse , go ahead. >> caller: . [inaudible] obama said he wanted to add another billion dollars. why do you want to add a billion dollars that is the biggest

waste in the department you have got. why not try to clean it up instead of adding more money onto it? and there's another thing i want to say here. [inaudible] they don't mind wasting money like this but when it comes to food stamps or social security security -- what is the military ever going to go broke? we know how much waste goes on there. >> host: jesse got your point. bob bob kuhnhenn the defense authorization on some of lauren the house this week.

>> guest: we have the sequestration deal that was struck. though parties didn't like it that they were handcuffed because they couldn't get a grand party -- bargains to be had sequestration through the deal stuck by patty murray and paul ryan last year soften that. still there's a big debate about defense spending and food stamp spending as the caller mentioned. that was the big issue in the farm bill which finally passed and made some cuts but not as many as the house republicans wanted. these kinds of debates are going to go on for years and until republicans repeatedly say and generally some democrats say if you look at medicare into a lesser extent social security reforms have to be made one where the other because these programs especially medicare are headed for bankruptcy. >> host: jim the caller was talking about cleaning up the va system rather than dumping money into the system. >> guest: well you know

whether they can dump money i think ultimately congress has to decide what they are going do for appropriations and whether this is the kind of trouble and that requires financing or requires a change in leadership. i don't know that the white house is making that big of a push for an infusion of money before they make a determination as to what the problem is in the first place. >> host: we will go to bill in scranton pennsylvania a republican caller. hi though. >> caller: my question is the irs scandal. i think this runs deep and i think it's undercover at the time. the networks have haven't given it any coverage and the ap has been given the coverage lately either. from citizens united to the latest on carl levin. why is this getting coverage?

i appreciate your reply. >> guest: benghazi now has captured a lot of the attention that the iras continues. the house recently held lois lerner former is -- iris agency official in contempt. it was a bipartisan vote. a few democrats voted for that motion. i think a big issue right now to watch over the next several weeks is the iras is going to release all of lois lerner's e-mails and this is something the ways & means committee chairman dave camp has been pressing for and right around the time of the vote the irs said it would. that's going to be maybe the next shoe to drop but the problem is lois lerner is not talking. until she talks she is really the lynchpin and she has claimed the fifth. i'm told there's more news out

of this than other things that we will pay attention to. >> guest: i agree. i think these e-mails could be a problem for could be illuminating. eventually as the scandal worked its way through while it looked like the irs had been emphasizing or giving greater scrutiny to these conservative groups there were the occasional liberal groups that were also getting this extra scrutiny. the question became which way was the irs tilting? maybe perhaps it will show something that we can focus on. >> host: anywhere from the justice department whether or not they go forward with what house republicans want an investigation or some sort of prosecution? >> guest: i'm not aware of what the justice department is doing. >> host: brenda you are on the air. go ahead.

>> caller: yes i want to talk about the irs and what obama has done with the medicaid and medicare. >> host: we are listening brenda. what about medicaid and medicare? >> guest: he cut all the benefits and the va and everyone else. i think he could have paid off the united states debt. >> host: brenda your breaking up a little bit and getting feedback from your television. i'm going to let you go on that point. bob cusack what to watch for this we? >> guest: defense and drones. he played a role as far as crafting the legal memo that justified the killing of americans in yemen terrace. the white house was on capitol hill last week talking to democrats about it and they want to move him through.

senator rand paul is going to be vocal on that. in the house for defense authorization bill and there will also be hearings and debate on the house floor about the abduction of the schoolgirls in nigeria. and then the big thing of course tomorrow election wise primaries in big states,, the biggest one senator mitch mcconnell's challenge from the right. >> host: of course we'll have coverage of the house floor and c-span over on c-span2's live coverage gavel-to-gavel. jim kuhnhenn what about the white house this week? >> guest: i think how they respond to continue to respond to the va problems. i think the white house is interested to see how leader pelosi deals with the benghazi investigation so they can gear up for that and bob mentioned the one circuit court of appeals judge who also had a bit of a flap last week over a federal judge in georgia by the name of

michael blogs that the president nominated with the support of blogs because of comments and positions that dogs had taken while he was a state representative regarding the confederate flag and abortion. so that kind of through a whole deal that the white house had struck with georgia's republican senators into question over judges. >> host: a lot to watch this week and of course we'll have coverage of the white house as well. go to c-span.org for all the details. bob cusack and jim kuhnhenn reporter with the "associated press." we thank you both. appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you greta.

republican governor mike pence of indiana wants to repeal the affordable care act but he has a plan to use medicaid expansion

funds from the bill to help the state's low-income residents. he outlined his proposal at the american enterprise institute. this is a little less than an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning ladies and lament that arthur brooks present a the american enterprise institute and delighted to welcome to this event featuring governor mike bentz of indiana. the title of this talk today is market-based medicaid reform in the age of obamacare. we are looking with very much anticipation to hear back his state's new waiver proposal for obamacare and medicaid. mike pence was elected as the 50th governor of the state of indiana and 2012. prior to that he was indiana's

representative in the sixth congressional district for six terms. in the house he served as republican house republicans chairman and the chairman of the house republicans study committee. he has had a huge amount of public service at the federal and state levels and is distinguished himself in his career is being a worry for the people including the people who have less power than average. today's policy is no exception. it's my honor to welcome governor mike pence. [applause] >> thank you arthur. thank you for that very kind introduction and thank you for the hospitality at the american enterprise institute. i am genuinely grateful and to you and i thank you not just for your hospitality today but for really keep being the lights of freedom and enterprise burning brightly in a city that too often seems committed to

extinguishing those lights in our nation. aei's mission as i see it is about keeping the hope of opportunity of a better life and more vibrant society alive and well in this country and promoting empirically grounded fresh ideas to make that possible. so it's an honor for me to be with you today and please join me again and thinking the american enterprise institute and arthur brooks for your great leadership. [applause] like any other admirers of of yours and your work at aei arthur i have been influenced by your writings and your sense of the term earned success. i come from a state that works. it's a state where people value hard work and so i see the

principle of really earned success lived out every day across the 92 counties of indiana. as i travel across my home state i see it in a schoolteacher who helps kids after school and help them graduate and go to college. i see it in the entrepreneurial business owner who started the business in their living room and now employs 50 people. or the police officer who takes pride in keeping the peace in our streets each and every day. i see in cities large and small across the state of indiana that principle that you've articulated so well that people are happier and more motivated when they build something of their own, when they take greater ownership in their lives and they earned the success. whatever level of success that is. that principle is much of what

rings me here today. what i'm here to talk about today is related to that point and it concerns the future of health care in america. particularly how indiana has been leading the way for the kind of reform that i would submit respects the dignity of every person regardless of their income and honors the aspiration of every person for a better life. i agree with the thinking here at american enterprise institute that made the case that reform minded conservatives need to ensure the safety net is well-designed and strong to provide a firm basis for those starting out on life's latter. i cites none other than president ronald reagan who would say in new york city in 1979 these words.

president reagan said quote we have long since committed ourselves as a people to help those among us who cannot take care of themselves but he added the federal government has proven to be the costliest and most inefficient providers of such help we could possibly have. i would submit once again reagan was right. the church is a safety net doesn't need to be expanded as some in this town argue incessantly. it doesn't need to be abolished as some also argue. it needs to be reformed. it needs to be made better and i believe that can best happen in the laboratories of innovation and democracy at the state level if you think of what president reagan said so many years ago is that we have long since committed ourselves to help people who can't help themselves

but the federal government itself was the least able to do that. i come before you today to really say that when it comes to the issue of health care i believe that people in my party need to be solutions conservatives offering real alternatives to the big government answers of the liberal establishment that are grounded in respect for the aspiration of every person to earn their own way, to succeed to achieve self-sufficiency and to do that in the best way possible with the kind of innovation that can happen all across the country on a state-by-state level. now i say all of this recognizing that this is the very antithesis of the broaching body of the affordable care act. ordering every american to buy

health insurance whether they wanted or needed or not is not the answer to expanding access to affordable health care in america. i have said before and i will say it again, for obamacare must be repealed. obamacare must be replaced with market taste reforms and as i will elaborate more today with a flexible medicaid law or a brand that allows the states to create innovative solutions at the point of the need. i have and will continue to advocate for a congress and a president that has the political will to repeal obamacare so we can do more to improve health access and outcomes. some of you who have known me for a while in this town know i was a pretty vocal opponent of obamacare when i was in the congress. i said then that this law will

not stand and i believe that more today than ever before. even though obamacare is architects are breathing a little easier it seems these days the program is still terribly flawed and should be repealed. it is bad for families. it's bad for business and it's bad for america. despite the great progress we have been making in our economy in the state of incorporated state of indiana there's not a day goes by that i don't travel across the hoosier state in here people tell me that the implementation of the affordable care act as a dampening effect hanging over indiana's economy and our nations economy. it's truly stifling growth in america. early in our administration against that backdrop i made clear that and again i would not establish a state taste exchanged knives stand by that decision. everyone is the fiscal position of these exchanges is untenable even if they wanted minute and come november when the rates rise again i'm afraid you will see another big drop in public support.

it was a government takeover of health care and the overly regular or did talk down command-and-control structure will never allow them to operate freely and as a result access will stay the same market worse as costs go up. i always thought that was the fundamental flaw of the argument on the other side. most people to i talk to when i was serving in the congress of whom said they were most concerned about the cost of health insurance. the focus in the congress wasn't on lowering the cost of health insurance. it was about growing the size of government and that is how the affordable care act came to be. obamacare needs to be repealed for all of those good reasons and i would submit to you for one more. because it's pushing a massive flawed medicaid program onto states. i believe the plan for state a's medicaid reform is not only entirely consistent with the repeal of obamacare but i

believe it helps make the case for why repeal is needed. now republicans in congress have long argued or reforming medicaid into a block grant so the states have flexibility to design better programs. i can't think of a budget that i voted for during my years in congress that didn't include block granting medicaid back to the united states and i submit to you today that a debate over health care reform states need to lead the way like indiana is doing. last week i announced the state of indiana will seek to do just that. to seek flexibility for the federal government to close was known as the coverage gap by expanding our own homegrown health care solution. it's known as the healthy indiana plan. honestly i've been talking about using the healthy indiana plan as a basis for expansion of health care coverage in indiana

since before he took office in january of 2013. today i'm pleased to have the opportunity to share with each one of you the details of art administrations proposal to expand the healthy indiana plan and offer consumer-driven private market is health care coverage to low income patients. first a little bit of background. today in indiana we have some 350,000 low income working hoosiers. those below 100% of the federal poverty level or for a family of four that's about $24,000 a year. these are hoosiers who lack access to the quality health insurance that many enjoy. experts as i say save rightly calls this coverage gap but truthfully many hoosiers 130% of the poverty level also as a practical matter can't access

affordable coverage and they live with uncertainty and their families as well. last week when we made our announcement i had the opportunity to introduce people of our state to a number of hoosiers that fall into this coverage gap. working men and women who are outgrowing their sleeves up oftentimes in the most difficult circumstances. courageously moving forward providing for their families. people like becky kinkaid and beth murphy proud hoosiers all who find themselves essentially for all intensive purposes caught in that gap where their income simply doesn't give them the ability to purchase health insurance for themselves and for their families. some of our neighbors across the midwest have chosen to address the coverage gap by expanding traditional medicaid and i respect the decisions they have made. i'm here to talk about indiana's decision. from the beginning in of my tenure as governor we have been saying no to obamacare in

indiana. we decline to state-based exchange tonight made it clear from the outset that we will not expand traditional medicaid on my watch. medicaid is not only broke. it's broken. medicaid is not of program we need to expand. medicaid is a program we need to reform. it was nobly created 50 years ago to help the poor and those with disabilities access quality health care. truth told medicaid has morphed into bureaucratic and fiscal monstrosity that does less to help low-income people than it has plans. obamacare advocates continue to promote medicaid expansion despite you were roaming evidence that the program doesn't work as it is supposed to. the highly anticipated study in oregon showed last year medicaid actually increased emergency room use by enrollees and produce health outcomes that were no better than being uninsured. other studies have also shown

health outcomes are no better and sometimes even worse for people that are covered by medicaid compared to those with no coverage at all. the truth is last year's oregon senate should have sent shock waves through the ranks of public health policy experts and advocates across the country. for some reason it didn't do that. it should have caused people to pause and ask themselves how expanding a program that doesn't include -- improve people's health outcomes at is just and fair and right to do that. if you care about low-income americans when the world would he want to expand the program and provide such inadequate coverage? the only thing medicaid does well is make it onto the gao list of high-risk federal programs every year. we all know doctors who have seen medicaid individuals for

free rather than dealing with medicaid. the program is prone to fraud and complicit in the growing disconnect between coverage and access of health care. let me say again i think obamacare needs to be repealed for many reasons including it's pushing a massive flawed medicaid program onto the states. some proponents of expansion particularly those who helped author the underlying legislation via ford will care act are satisfied with covering a vulnerable population with a program that is so deeply flawed fortunately hoosiers have found a better way. in indiana we have learned the way to change medicaid is to base the program on what we now improved health and lowers costs namely consumer-driven health care. using health savings accounts.

let me brag on the hoosier state for just a second pair they said we think indiana is the birthplace of health savings accounts. some of you in the policy community in our nations capital remember they named j. patrick moynihan. he was an insurance executive and a visionary. in addition to this idea what she called medical savings account which he perhaps more than any other american popularized on capitol hill was able to achieve being added into the tax code as the pilot program. he also personally financed the first privately funded educational choice program in the united states of america. j. patrick rooney was my friend but he was a visionary hoosier and we miss him. beginning with his vision in the early 1990s indiana became a centerpiece for the discussion about consumer-driven health care.

in fact today indiana has more public employees 96% in our state government enrolled with health savings accounts plans more than any other state. her private marketplace has a higher percentage of people enrolled in plans compared to many other states. so the healthy indiana plan built as it is on health savings accounts and consumer-driven health care makes the most sense being launched and piloted an expanded in the state were consumer-driven health care in many respects was born. six years ago against that backdrop in progress indiana became the first day to successfully create a consumer-driven health plan to expand quality health insurance coverage to the population covered in medicaid. it was created on pilot basis in the call that is the magic the healthy indiana plan. it provides health savings accounts today do some 40,000

hoosiers and empowers them to take ownership of their health decisions and it works. the healthy indiana plan integrated the principles of consumerism within medicaid encouraging enrollees to take charge of their health care and empowering them to act as consumers in the health care market. here are some of the facts. the healthy indiana plan has lowered an appropriate emergency rooms use by 7% compared to traditional medicaid during the course of the program. 60% of hip enrollees and that's our acronym. get used to it. 60% of hip enrollees use preventative care which is similar to the rates we see in general commercial marketplace. enrollees choose generic drugs at much higher rate than people covered by private insurance plans. in fact when you think in a broad sense consumer-driven health plans have been shown to decrease health care spending by 25% across the country and those

public employees that i mentioned in the state of indiana who have a 96% enrollment rate in the health savings plan that saves me about $23 million a year for taxpayers in indiana thanks to the adoption of those programs. we are also beginning to see this downward trend of health care costs within the healthy indiana plan as well. and let me say hip enrollees have a proven track record of managing their own health care decisions. 93% of hip enrollees make contributions their savings account on time. a third of them say they regularly as their health care providers about the cost of services and 98% say they would enroll in hip again if they were given the choice. in a word indiana has proven in the last six years that a consumer-driven health care works and it works for those that are starting out on the first rung of the latter.

now because of his success last week my administration announced plans to submit a waiver to the center ramada care and medicaid services to replace traditional medicaid in indiana for all able-bodied adults with an expanded version of the healthy indiana plan. this will go for those of the 130% of the federal poverty level and we actually call it hit 2.0. my kids like that. hit 2.0 would offer three basic options and i want to roll through them with you quickly. first would be a premium assistance plan that helps low income working hoosiers access employer coverage and second we have to health savings account like plans with varying degrees of coverage. it's essentially a three-legged stool for health care in indiana. we had -- bob hip link hip plus and hit basic.

now each of these would allow people to utilize private insurance options and consumer behavior to increase access to quality health care and to manage costs and health outcomes than long run. first off and hip 2.0 we would offer hip link which is a premium assistance program for people who have access to insurance through their employers today but simply may not be able to afford it. this is a defined contribution premium assistance program and it is the first of its kind in the united states of america. those who qualify for hip -- hip length would receive a defined contribution from the state and to what we call the power account. that's her health savings account which they could use for premiums co-payments or deductibles. that is first. secondly is the first of the two health savings account programs.

hip plus first and foremost i will say is available to all qualified hip members who make their contributions to their health savings account. their power account. those contributions will range from $3 a month to $25 a month based on income. hip plus plan offers enhanced coverage including vision and dental for adults and a comprehensive drug program that covers maternity service with no car sharing during the duration of urgency. lastly is hip basic. it's something of the default plan. it's exclusively for hoosiers below 100% of the federal poverty level who fail to make their required contributions to the health savings account. members of this plan must make co-pays. they will receive fewer benefits until they can begin to contribute to their health savings account again and move back.

again by way of summary the premium assistance program helps people who are employed they can't afford their employers health plan or don't have access to the plan. the enhanced health savings account plan hip plus or by its incentives and use preventative care offers a more generous set of benefits. the second plan hip basic serves as the default for those under 100% of federal poverty who fail to make their payments under hip plus. contains incentives for them to re-enter the hip plus program. both plans penalize appropriate emergency room use and encourage preventative care instead. contributions are required for all hip members who choose one of the health savings account plans. those above 100% of the federal poverty level risk losing their coverage entirely if they do not make contributions. those below 100% of the federal

poverty level should they stop making contributions must make co-pays receive fewer benefits until they began to make contributions again. the contribution amounts are reasonable and fair by income level and are designed to be that way. as we have seen in our pilot program let me say this emphatically. low income working hoosiers in our state take pride in managing their accounts and making their contributions to the health savings accounts consistently. and we are proud of that fact. a couple other elements. the plan also includes what we call a gateway to work referral program that will connect those who qualify for hip coverage with job training and job search programs offered by the state of indiana so they can move up and out of the program. hip 2.0 is not intended to be an entitlement. it's a safety net program that aligns incentives with human mast rations. the plan also includes high

co-pays for inappropriate er usage to encourage enrollees to use primary care rather than emergency care to manage nonemergent health needs. and i'm very pleased to say that hip 2.0 will be fully funded at no additional cost to hoosier taxpayers. hip 2.0 will be funded through a combination of federal funds and in agreement with indiana's hospitals who have partnered with us to improve access to health care health care coverage within the state of indiana. this means if approved by the federal government are waiver will allow us to expand health care coverage to hundreds of thousands of hoosiers with no new state spending and no tax increases required. now if i haven't thoroughly confused you or if i have you can go to our web site and read all about it point -- hip 2.0. visit hip.in.com.

i think hip 2.0 maintains emphasis on the principles that animate my political career and they think are the very heart of the people of our state and the people of this country. it puts the emphasis on personal responsibility. they also represent a continuing effort in indiana to find in the date they do fiscally responsible ways to give people the care they need. reforming traditional medicaid through this kind of market based consumer-driven approach i believe is essential to creating better health outcomes for the people of our state and curbing the dramatic growth in medicaid spending for the people in our country. i truly believe once obamacare is repealed at the consumer-driven plan that we are proposing and a healthy indiana plan will serve as a model for what block granted medicaid or grams can do in states across the country. with this i will close.

and i will be pleased to take some questions. i believe there are only two futures for health care in america today. there is government driven health care for there is consumer-driven health care. years ago when the healthy indiana plan was adopted indiana chose the better torsion by embracing consumer-driven health care giving eligible hoosiers the power to make their own health care decisions. now we are seeking permission from the federal government in the form of a waiver to build on that choice by expanding the healthy indiana plan for more working hoosiers. hip 2.0 takes consumer driven medicaid reform to the next level by replacing traditional medicaid in indiana for all nondisabled adults and offering instead a health care culture that is built on health across conscious decision-making. again let me say hip 2.0 is not intended to be a long-term entitlement program. our hope is that people will not be on it very long at all that

will transition into the private insurance marketplace. there are opportunities in taking greater ownership in their own health care will lay a foundation for good health for prosperity and their family as they move up and out of probe them and are able to obtain insurance in the marketplace. hip 2.0 is a safety net that aligns incentives with current success hope and opportunity. the truth is the soft paternalism of the modern welfare state has failed to honor the dignity of the working poor in many ways. by failing to give them the benefit of the doubt and by failing to believe in them in indiana we believe in are people regardless of their income regardless of where they find themselves on the path to success. hip 2.0 is really designed and built with that faith and that

confidence in the people of indiana and their ability to take gold of their futures if given the opportunity to prosper. lastly let me close here at this policy group surrounded by so many think-tank people. that may ground this a little bit more in the world in which i work every day. i think as we talk about policies and coverage health care reform and to the debates that take place on cable television and their airwaves across the country we must never forget we are talking about real people working people who deserve a better way. the hip to point out and our proposal to reform traditional medicaid in indiana is about reaching out to people that are

working hard to build a better future but simply don't have the ability, good don't have the means and the health insurance economy we have today to be able to provide coverage for themselves and for their families. but the real hoosiers and i have talked to many across our state since i began to service governor and one of them i will close with his name is diana. i met diana at a visit to a community hospital in indianapolis just a few weeks back. she was in with a heart condition but she said it was okay if i came to her room anyway. she was self-conscious about how she looked and i tried to set her at ease. i told her you look great.

i sat down next to her bed and i took her by the hand and she told me her story. diana had lost her insurance when she lost her job. shortly thereafter she started having chest pains. even though she knew she could go to the emergency room and get treatment she waited. she actually told me sitting up in her bed, she said the doctors told me i put off coming in a little too long. but she said i didn't want to come in because i was embarrassed because i didn't have insurance. thank god she's okay and i prayed for her more than once since that day. she touched my heart.

here is a hard-working woman who just wanted to find a way to pay her own way and not rely on access to a public hospital. i think diana is like a lot of working hoosiers. people who don't want a handout but they need a hand up. in indiana we have long cherished the principle of love your neighbor love yourself and we should never walk by on the opposite side of the road if someone is hurting and they need. i think it's what makes indiana special. let me just say that is what hip 2.0 is really about respecting the dignity of every hoosier including our working poor to

find a way to cover themselves and their families. respecting their ability to make their own health care choices and empowering them to lead healthier better lives. i think the healthy indiana plan is a better way. it's a better way to better health, better coverage and a better health care system and a better future for working people in the state of indiana and beyond. i hope that our success with this program will help other states as well and serve as yet another reason why we should start over on health care reform in america why we should repeal obamacare and replace it with a plan that includes consumer-driven health care for low-income americans and empowers them and their families to meet their needs and make their own way.

thank you very much. i appreciate your time and attention tonight. [applause] i think we have a little time for questions. go ahead. >> my name is dan parent and i'm the head of the hsa coalition. i want to thank you first of all for mentioning my mentor pat rooney and his role in this. secondly i want to just endorse what you're doing here. i think it's incredible. i think it's incredibly courageous. you have got tremendous -- for the 96% of state employees who are using hsa's now. in addition to that your hip one plan is the only one in the country and the results are clear on their face.

people save money and we save money and you bring personal responsibility and choice. within a government construct under obama and that's no small choice and i just want to say thumbs up. >> thank you very much for that. i appreciate it and we are proud of our heritage in indiana. we believe it was an idea born in the hoosier state and someone asked me last week after we announce this why you're expanding the healthy indiana plan and i said because it works. sometimes i worked in this town for 12 years and everyone has a new idea. this isn't a new idea. this has been in the field working for people eligible for medicaid in indiana. it's also working for state employees and that's the very

core the very practical core of why we want to expand this program. do you want to get the microphone real quick. >> my name is barbara dela and i'm a caretaker of an elderly parent and i want to thank you for the work you are doing on this. is healthy indiana work through a combination of health savings accounts and sometimes a modified insurance and does that have to work within the mandatory benefits package that sometimes gives too much of one kind of care and not enough of another and drives up costs? >> the short answer is and i recommend that you go and i will plug it in for c-span audience again. it's hip.in.gov. read all about it. it's basically a three-legged stool. the first piece of it hip blank

basically allows individuals to use what he the state's contribution to their health savings accounts for trimming them assistance. there are a lot of people in this category and again if you walk out of here with no other, no with the realization this is a program that we are designing to meet the needs of working hoosiers, okay? these are people with jobs and maybe they have fallen on hard times. these are people that are working for a living or aspiring to work for a living. first would be the premium assistance piece allows people to purchase health insurance they might not otherwise be able to afford through their employer. as i said then this is for the technical people in the room. as an assistance program it's the first of its kind in the country. it is in effect a voucher for people to use these public resources and purchase their piece of their health insurance for their employees.

the other two pieces hip plus is very much designed after our current healthy indiana plan and its true health savings accounts. there are consequences for nonpayment. it's open to everybody that is eligible within the population up to 138% of the federal poverty level but to your last point for people under 100% of the federal poverty level even current federal regulations there is a certain minimum amount of coverage that within the waiver we have today and the waiver we are requiring cannot be denied but that the way we have structured it is in effect by making full health saving account plans the hip plus more attractive eminently affordable with that or benefits. we have every confidence that people are going to choose the hip plus plans